Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Civil Appeal No. 3478 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17965 of 2008). Case: Anoop Sharma Vs Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1 Panipat (Haryana). Supreme Court (India)

Judgment Cited in 61 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 3478 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17965 of 2008)
CounselFor Appellant: Brijender Chahar, Sr. Adv., K.R. Anand, Jyoti Chahar and Vinay Garg, A.O.R., Advs. and For Respondents: Sukhda Pritam, Charu Sangwan and Naresh Bakshi (NP), Advs.
JudgesG.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
IssueIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2, 10(1), 25B, 25F and 25N; Motor Vehicles Act, 1939; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 226; Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
CitationJT 2010 (4) SC 229, RLW 2010 (2) SC 1586, 2010 (4) SCALE 203, (2010) 5 SCC 497
Judgement DateApril 09, 2010
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

G.S. Singhvi, J.

  1. Leave granted.

  2. The only question which requires consideration in this appeal is whether the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court erred in upsetting award dated 1.8.2002 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as "the Labour Court") for reinstatement of the appellant without even recording a finding that the same suffered from any jurisdictional error or violation of the rules of natural justice or was vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record.

  3. The appellant was engaged/employed by the respondent as Mali-cum- Chowkidar with effect from 11.10.1995. He was paid monthly wages at the rate of Rs. 1900/-. His service was discontinued with effect from 25.4.1998. The dispute raised by the appellant was referred by the Government of Haryana to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act"). In the statement of claim filed by him, the appellant pleaded that he had worked for a period of more than two years and six months; that his service was discontinued with effect from 25.4.1998 without giving him notice or pay in lieu thereof or retrenchment compensation and without complying with mandate of Section 25N of the Act. Another plea taken by the appellant was that no seniority list of the workers had been prepared and persons junior to him, namely, Ramesh, Amarjit, Jagbir and Rohtash were retained in service. In the written statement filed by the respondent, it was pleaded that the services of the appellant and other similarly situated employees were discontinued because the State Government had issued instructions to that effect in the wake of financial crisis. It was further pleaded that the workman was offered compensation along with the letter of termination, but he refused to accept the same and left the station and, therefore, demand draft bearing No. 056997 dated 25.4.1998 for a sum of Rs. 5,491/- was sent at his residence. For the sake of convenient reference, the relevant portions of the written statement, as contained in the paper book of this appeal, are extracted below:

    PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

  4. xxx xxx xxx

    2. That as per rules prescribed in Section 25F of Industrial Dispute Act, the workman was offered the amount of compensation with termination letter but the claimant refused to take the same and soon after he left the station also. A demand draft bearing No. 056997 dated 25.4.98 amounting to Rs. 5491/- was sent to the 18.8.1998 workman residence but he refused to accept it and registered letter received back undelivered. The said draft/banker cheque was once again sent to the claimant home address. 2nd time the same was received/accepted by the claimant. Keeping-in-view the facts stated above the respondent is not at fault in any manner so the present claim statement filed by the claimant is not maintainable in any manner.

    ON MERIT

  5. That in reply to para No. 1 of the claim statement it is stated that the claimant was engaged as casual labour in 12/95 and his services were dispensed with on 25.498 due to financial crunch being experienced by the Govt. of Haryana as already explained in para No. 1 of the preliminary objection.

    1. That para No. 1(a) of the claim statement is wrong and denied, the notice dated 25.4.98 along with a demand draft bearing No. 056997 dated 25.4.98 amounting to Rs. 5491/- was offered to the claimant on dated 25.4.98 but the claimant refused to take the same and soon after he left the station also, later on the said draft was sent to the claimant residence which was received by him.

    2. That the para No. 1(b) of the claim statement is wrong and denied as already explained above the retrenchment compensation as per Section 25F of the I.D. Act was offered to the claimant on 25.4.98 but he refused to take the same and soon after left the station also. The demand draft was sent to his home address which was received by him.

    3. xxx xxx xxx

       
      d) xxx xxx xxx

    4. The appellant appeared as WW-1 and reiterated the averments contained in the statement of claim. On behalf of the respondent, Shri Ram Chander was examined as MW-1. He stated that the appellant had worked as casual labour from December 1995 to 25.4.1998 with breaks and that he was given retrenchment compensation with letter Ex. M-1 dated 25.4.1998, which he refused to accept. Shri Ram Chander further stated that the amount of compensation was sent to the appellant at his home address by demand draft Ext. M-3 dated 25.4.1998. According to Shri Ram Chander, no person junior to the appellant was retained in the department. However, no evidence was produced by the respondent to corroborate the oral assertion of Shri Ram Chander that the appellant had refused to accept the compensation.

  6. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the Labour Court recorded the following conclusions:

    (1) That the total number of employees in the department was about 400 and, therefore, compliance of Section 25N of the Act was mandatory before terminating the services of the workman.

    (2) From Ext. M-4 it is clear that the workman received the amount of compensation on 18.8.1998, i.e., after the months and 23 days.

    (3) The plea of the management that compensation was refused by the workman is not supported by any proof or other evidence.

    (4) The workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.

  7. The respondent challenged the award of the Labour Court in Writ Petition No. 6849/2004. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the award by observing that there was no reason for the Labour Court to record a finding that the compensation was not offered to the workman at the time of retrenchment. The Division Bench also held that the appellant cannot be reinstated in service because he was not appointed against any sanctioned post and he was initially employed without complying with the statutory provisions. This is evinced from the following extract of the impugned Order:

    During the course of arguments, learned...

To continue reading

Request your trial
61 practice notes
61 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT